Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

The point you are missing is that when two actions have the same potential effect, the judgment levied on the actions has to be the same unless you provide additional reasons of different effects that are also worthy of judgement.  You have, again, undermined your entire argument by alluding to the use of reducto ad absurdum.  The point of such an argument is wholly divorced from the probability of such an action occurring and wholly wedded to showing that a certain attitude or perspective is not appropriate in all instances.  

Undermine? How so? The two actions do not have the same effect (as we illustrated and even simplified on your behalf). I made this point already and even showed how your logic to introduce an externaltiy of over-consumption to gain the same effect is logically invalid. Now I see you want to introduce another externality and express probability of application. In this manner the reducto ad absurdum does not fail to make consideration for it simply endeavors to determine the validity of the thing in and of itself or universally. By introducing the probability of application you endeavor to state that while a particular thing is bad in and of itself or even if universally normalized it should still be permitted because probability is minimal it will be normalized to the deleterious universal resulting harm (while forgetting the particular resulting harm, which is still present). I believe RedBeard made a similar argument as:

As for the appeal to popularity, that only applies to ideas that are popular for bad reasons. If the consensus claim is based on little to no evidence, and/or a bad interpretation of that evidence, and/or logical fallacy, then it makes sense to redress that claim and examine it more closely. Those are not the reasons for the consensus claim on homosexuality, though. That consensus claim is generated by experts looking at evidence and finding that homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout both nature and human culture, that it is essentially harmless to the success of any species where it appears, that sexual orientation is set long before choice is a meaningful factor, and that it is generally harmful to force individuals to change or ignore their sexual orientation. In short, the current, secular claims regarding homosexuality are popular for some really, really good reasons.

To which I responded:

Now you wish to argue it is essentially harmless to any species it appears (which is not to say it is harmless, but more to say it is effectively so while still being harmful). And in this regard you would be right if and only if its presence is not prevalent (the same may be said for pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, and murder. Overall the impacts of these conditions do not present a threat to any species as a whole so long as its presence is not prevalent, so why prohibit them? Are you going to special plead again?) Now throughout nature and cultures the world over the treatment of this particular harmless ubiquity (and the others) is to eliminate it or to at minimum isolate it from doing harm in the given society.

Regrettably the arguments presented by both you and Redbeard are applicable to the aforementioned undesirables (I specifically asked for a solution to that problem to which I received no answer). But the point of our whole logical chain is to determine why the aforementioned undesirable is undesirable. To this end we outlined a method stemming from biology which proceeds from orientation to action to particular resultant to universal resultant. Thus we observe both the particular resultant is bad and the universal is bad in such a manner as to say this orientation is undesirable. (Indeed the orientation has no positive result beyond emotional satisfaction of a desire. Something readily observed as impermissible for a wide array of desires and conduct due to the particular and universal resultants. As we exhibited by supplanting our logic with the subject of murder).

In both cases you and Redbeard do not dispute the undesirability of the nature (which our argument exhibits), but rather endeavor to argue that which is undesirable should be tolerated because it is unlikely the particular harm shall ever be normalized to a universal harm (this would be your probability) or for the sake of the emotions of a minority of a minority of undesirables who feel mental anguish they then manifest as physical harm at being undesired (this would be his harmful to a minority of a minority). Neither case presenting an argument in their favor or giving a reason based on the orientation and action which invariably follows for equalization or sanction with other desirable orientation or conduct.

You used reducto ad absurdum to point out one thing, and then I used reducto ad absurdum to point out that your conclusion is true for all cases of sexuality, and so all of humanity is bad by the same token.  

Your effort to apply reducto ad absurum is invalid for the very reason I have told you time and again. By means of the improper introduction of an externality in the logical chain (where you introduce either IVF or Over-consumption) you render your conclusion invalid.

2. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (opp sex) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act (over-consumption) -> Universal Result (extinction due to over consumption)

3. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Act IVF (hetero) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act Result (continuation by conception).

Thus you do not proceed from orientation, to action, to particular result, to universal result in keeping with proper logic. Your argument is logically invalid while mine is not. You fail to show hetero orientation is bad. I doubt you ever could as it is essential, while homo is not (it does not take all kinds. It just takes the right kind). Though I do like the effort to argue extinction is a good thing because over-consumption is bad (that is the logical maxim of your argument after all).

You have done everything you can to admit your argument sucks, without simply admitting that it sucks.  You are very very close now, and this is going to be the last time I repeat what I have been saying.

So again, what are your arguments for why homosexuality is bad?  The only argument you have brought forth so far is an argument that suggests to me that all of humanity is bad.  Since we are discussing why we should be more partial to heterosexuals, a conclusion that all forms of sexuality are bad is not a conclusion that adds weight to the argument that we should be more partial to heterosexual groups.

HA HA. Indeed I am tired of repeating myself as well. But as Joe Biden said before the VP debate with Sarah Palin, "Getting people to understand is like selling tires...You have to say it seven times before they ever remember it and even more times before they finally understand it."

I have in no way admitted my argument sucks nor have I implied as much (which is why I keep referring back to it!! Though I confess you got lost in the forest much quicker than I anticipated). As stated above, you have yet to convert my argument into one where all sexualities are bad. You like to keep saying you did but all you did was make an argument to why over-consumption is bad, which I agree with in part. Over-consumption of necessary resources is bad! However, it is bad regardless of sexual orientation and would be just as bad if done by hetero or homo (I do admire your efforts to argue that nothing is better than something).

Not only are we not arguing over-consumption, it may further be stated population does not have a invariable relationship to over-consumption as illustrated when we pointed out that China has 15x the population of the US and consumes 1/4 the resources (an inverse relationship? Not quite, but definitely an illustration of over-consumption not being a population issue much less a procreation issue and being more of a lifestyle issue). As I stated before, if you wish to introduce an externality that does not logically follow from orientation to act to particular result to universal result it may just as readily be rebuttaled by an externality. So leave the externalities out of the argument as they avail you not and serve only to confuse.

Tell you what, we may now discuss your argument in their favor. What was it again?